Evidence and Implementation

[Stubble]

You, triple down on 'explicit'?

You are aware words are defined and have meaning, right? Not unlike the minutes themselves, you can't just use words and ascribe meaning to them. If such were the case, language would be useless as nothing would have any meaning.

If the minutes are euphemism then, by definition, they aren't explicit. By definition.

If you don't understand this, I can see how you may develop misconceptions when ascribing ill intentions where none, in fact, exist.

Perhaps someone will be kind enough to start a wannsee thread so we can discuss them at length.

For the record, less than 20 hours ago, you said much the same as you said here. That's not 2 weeks ago.

Lastly, I assume you still haven't read them.

I've read translations yes. Might be something lost in translation. To be honest, I hardly see those as euphemisms but even euphemisms are pretty explicit. This might be worth going through because we do see this very differently and I want to understand why you see it differently.

Because when I see a document that says 'evacuation to the east' I do not assume that means 'murder'.

That you think that explicitly means murder, and that you are confused how I could think otherwise is telling.

[Wahrheitssucher]

It seems like just yesterday you were saying the wannsee minutes explicitly outlined 'the plan for the holocaust'.

Oh, wait, that was yesterday...

Have you bothered to read, anything?

I moved on from that argument because we have a semantic disagreement on language.

Er… No.
You “moved on” from that false claim because you appear to have realised on some level that your claim was wrong and that you were only able to make it because you were arguing from complete ignorance of the actual contents of the Wannsee Protocol.

I am surprised you can’t admit this simple truth.
That your reply tries to avoid this I suggest shows you are in denial. Which if so is ironic as it means you are the actual ‘denier’ here.

I also think it’s revealing that you think such replies from clear ‘denial’ will convince anyone.

The overwhelming majority of people would interpret the minutes as explicit proof that the Holocaust took place.

First you do not specify what ‘the holocaust’ you are referring to exactly is. That shows are not yet familiar with its history and how the narrative has evolved over-time PLUS is interpreted differently. Did it start in 1933 or 1941? Was it the mass-murder of 6 million Jews (the masses) or 4.3 (Reitlinger) or 5.1 (Hilberg) or 11 million jews and gentiles (Wiesenthal).

SUGGESTION: The majority of people would NOT interpret the Wannsee protocol as proof of an attempt at mass-murdering ALL Jews if they actually read it.

You haven’t read it.

Here’s an interesting fact: I have never met anyone in person who has read it. No-one. Not a single person.
There have only been very few occasions when I have even discussed it with anyone, as most have only a vague awareness of its existence.
Consequently it is unsurprising that very few people are aware of the fact that, without applying the ‘euphemism’ interpretation, its actual wording DOES NOT SUPPORT the holocaust narrative but actually contradicts it.

I have had only one discussion about it, with an unusually intelligent and well-read work colleague. It was at a time when I was first discovering in detail what a grand deception the whole holocaust narrative is. So I was keen to discuss that shocking discovery to certain intelligent friends who I thought could take it in. He immediately brought up the Wannsee protocal, arguing it was proof from the NSDAP leadership themselves of their plan to exterminate ALL Jewry. When I told him I’d read it and so knew it wasn’t proof, he was incredulous. So I suggested he maybe should read it himself. That way he could decide for himself if what I was telling him was accurate. He visibly recoiled in horror at the very idea. Presumably his childhood conditioning into the simplistic notion of ‘Nazis’ being the worst manifestation of evil in known history was so strong that the idea of reading a document written by ‘Nazis’ was abhorrent to him.
That reaction I suggest is evidence that “most people” can’t actually think for themselves and instead trust ‘authorities’ to do that for them. Even intelligent, educated people can’t be reasonable and rational on this subject. That being because the childhood emotive conditioning is too firmly engrained.
A view-point that you yourself are demonstrating admirably.
As I have explained previously, I don’t think you are approaching revisionist arguments with either an open mind, nor with any honesty.
It is ok to be critical but we also need a fair, reasonable and self-aware approach.

you interpret slightly ambiguous language differently. We can agree to disagree on that. Doing the linguistic and semantic analysis is probably worth doing so maybe I'll open a thread on that too.

Why bother? If you aren’t open to the possibility of being wrong and of being corrected, what is the point of discussion?

"Explicit" means something that is stated clearly and directly, leaving no room for confusion or interpretation. Something can seem explicit to one person but not to another, depending on their background knowledge, the context, language comprehension, or expectations.

Pathetic! This is more avoidance and denial based on transparently false misrepresentation of the unanimity of agreement on simple word definitions. Which is a standard ‘believer’ tactic when they are shown to be wrong but can’t admit it.

This can be a matter of subjective opinion and some people have better subjective judgment than others. Do you not see why so many people see that conference minutes as smoking gun evidence?

Yes, we who are interested in truth and accurate preservation of WW2 history can see why so many people believe that.
1. Because they have never read it themselves and ONLY read what ‘authorities’ tell them it contains.
2. Because they have been conditioned from childhood to believe that the supposed plan by the NSDAP high-command to exterminate ALL Jews in purpose-built camps is unquestionable truth and therefore they need to believe there is some documentary evidence from the Third Reich confirming that. As there is no other documentary evidence — despite many tons of orders, reports, accounts being captured by the victorious Allies — the promoters of the holocaust narrative have had to use this document about expulsion.
3. To admit that it only works as documentary proof of an extermination policy by: a.) mistranslating a particular passage and b.) by claiming reference to emigration is a code-word euphemism, would be a devastating acknowledgement that for most people would cause an existential crisis. Most people are therefore not psychologically nor intellectually equipped to go through such a realisation and revelation.

I understand that there can be differences of opinion on things, but you are in the clear minority on this. It doesn't mean you are wrong, but it should be acknowledged and discussed.

That is an ‘appeal to authority’. Which confirms that my point 3 above CURRENTLY applies to you. Please think about that for a while and ‘try on’ that understanding to see if it fits.
The problem for MOST people when confronted with revisionist arguments concerns psychology, not verifiability. They have to confront their own propensity for illogical and unreasonable group confirmity. And they have to do that BEFORE they can fairly and honestly assess the facts and the evidence confirming them.

[ConfusedJew]

Revisionists don't understand evidencing, so you will not get sensible answers.

1. They do want to throw out large parts of the evidence, such as 100% of the people who worked inside the death camps and most of the archaeological evidence. Documents such as the Stroop Report, which is explicit about killing people at TII, is also thrown out.

2. They prefer the unevidenced resettlement theory over the evidenced mass killings.

I don't think it's accurate to call the people on this forum historical "revisionists". To call them deniers is a bit demeaning, although it's accurate. Disbelievers is maybe a bit more accurate.

There is an issue where they ignore 99% of the evidence and find something small with the 1% to try to reverse the direction of what the whole body of evidence. They do seem to deny that that is what they are actually doing.

"In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account. It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) scholarly views or narratives regarding a historical event, timespan, or phenomenon by introducing contrary evidence or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved."

The difference between what they are doing and historical revisionism is that they are trying to discredit an orthodox narrative. But they don't offer contrary evidence, they just try to discredit some pieces of information, which is fine but it doesn't suggest what they try to say that it does.

There is no compelling explanation for how or why hundreds of thousands of people could have lied or been mistaken about something that they personally have experienced. Showing that a few pieces of evidence or testimonies might not have been fully credible just slightly weakens the overall case, but the evidence is so overwhelming it doesn't actually move the needle.

I obviously disagree with these people but I have been very interested to learn about what we disagree about and why we disagree.

What I still don't understand is whether they actually believe what they are arguing and why they came to believe these things.

[ConfusedJew]

Because when I see a document that says 'evacuation to the east' I do not assume that means 'murder'.

That you think that explicitly means murder, and that you are confused how I could think otherwise is telling.

This is worth opening a new thread in my opinion. If you look at those single sentences in isolated fragments, I could see how somebody would interpret it that way. But within the context of the entire conference and its minutes and so many other testimonies, the evidence is overwhelming.

[Nazgul]

But within the context of the entire conference and its minutes and so many other testimonies, the evidence is overwhelming.

To you perhaps, but a different story is emerging. No one gives a rats rectum what you hold true.

[Stubble]

Because when I see a document that says 'evacuation to the east' I do not assume that means 'murder'.

That you think that explicitly means murder, and that you are confused how I could think otherwise is telling.

This is worth opening a new thread in my opinion. If you look at those single sentences in isolated fragments, I could see how somebody would interpret it that way. But within the context of the entire conference and its minutes and so many other testimonies, the evidence is overwhelming.

The only way to see the wannsee minutes as anything other than innocuous discussion about deportation/evacuation is to look at snippets in isolation.

When taken whole as a tapestry, the image is obvious and not in any way genocidal.

You have to play jenga with the words and remove the context to interpret genocidal intentions. That is by definition non explicit. It isn't even implied unless you bring your own bias to the table.

Yes, the wannsee minutes deserve a thread.

It is my opinion that there are other members who would be better at opening that thread than I and it is also my opinion that someone surely already has and its importation to the fairly infant forum (it was only recently reestablished after all) would be of great benefit to future readers.

[ConfusedJew]

Er… No.
You “moved on” from that false claim because you appear to have realised on some level that your claim was wrong and that you were only able to make it because you were arguing from complete ignorance of the actual contents of the Wannsee Protocol.

I am surprised you can’t admit this simple truth.
That your reply tries to avoid this I suggest shows you are in denial. Which if so is ironic as it means you are the actual ‘denier’ here.

You are mischaracterizing my actions. I didn't move on because I realizing that my claim was wrong and didn't have a response. However, I saw that you disputed it in a way that I strongly disagree with still, but needed time to come up with a rebuttal. I have now studied the body of anti-Holocaust arguments, more or less, so I'm able to identify and address the core areas of disagreement.

[ConfusedJew]

The only way to see the wannsee minutes as anything other than innocuous discussion about deportation/evacuation is to look at snippets in isolation.

When taken whole as a tapestry, the image is obvious and not in any way genocidal.

You have to play jenga with the words and remove the context to interpret genocidal intentions. That is by definition non explicit. It isn't even implied unless you bring your own bias to the table.

Yes, the wannsee minutes deserve a thread.

It is my opinion that there are other members who would be better at opening that thread than I and it is also my opinion that someone surely already has and its importation to the fairly infant forum (it was only recently reestablished after all) would be of great benefit to future readers.

Based on what I have read, and I admittedly have not read the original German, I strongly believe that the opposite of your argument is true. But that's what makes this interesting and we'll have to pull that apart in a separate thread. I'll do some more research on the broader context of the conference and its meetings first before opening that thread though.

[ConfusedJew]

To you perhaps, but a different story is emerging. No one gives a rats rectum what you hold true.

I'm not asking you to as I also don't care what you hold true either. What I do care about is why you believe what you believe and at that point we can figure out why we disagree at a more granular level.

[Nazgul]

I'm not asking you to as I also don't care what you hold true either. What I do care about is why you believe what you believe and at that point we can figure out why we disagree at a more granular level.

It is an almost blank canvas with many dots. How you connect the dots can create any picture you wish. We are sceptical how people with ingrained beliefs like you connect the dots. You have created a picture and cannot reboot to start again.

[Nessie]

...
The only way to see the wannsee minutes as anything other than innocuous discussion about deportation/evacuation is to look at snippets in isolation.

When taken whole as a tapestry, the image is obvious and not in any way genocidal.

...

The only way to determine what the Final Solution involved, is to look at what is evidenced to have happened to the millions of Jews arrested and sent to camps and ghettos, 1939-44.

[ConfusedJew]

It is an almost blank canvas with many dots. How you connect the dots can create any picture you wish. We are sceptical how people with ingrained beliefs like you connect the dots. You have created a picture and cannot reboot to start again.

Yes this is a great way of describing it, assuming people are acting in good faith about their beliefs.

To me, if you look at the entire picture, it seems totally obvious to me, but the way you guys are connecting the dots is very creative and chaotic to me.

The way you guys connect the dots to me seems like the conspiracy theory picture in the bottom right corner of this meme but I'm open minded to hearing how and why you guys connect the dots that way.

[Wahrheitssucher]

There is an issue where they ignore 99% of the evidence and find something small with the 1% to try to reverse the direction of what the whole body of evidence.

You haven’t yet provided ANY evidence at all. You just make many false claims from ignorance of the detail of that evidence.

If you disagree, then list the ‘evidence’ you have provided, plus include verifiable references showing where you got it.

What I still don't understand is whether they actually believe what they are arguing and why they came to believe these things.

What a peculiar lack of “understanding”.
Perhaps this is another subliminal confession through accusation.
(Zionist Jews committing and supporting the ongoing genocide in occupied Palestine do that a great deal, viz. falsely accusing Hamas of their own actions, such as: using human-shields, of beheading babies, of raping, of terrorism, etc.)

I of course believe in EVERYTHING that I write.
Why else would I have spent so much time first reading and researching and second testing the credibility of my understanding of that research on a discussion forum?

I came to believe it through reading, researching, analysing, discussing with holocaust true-believers on numerous holocaust chat-forums. It was the latter that has been most convincing as I have NEVER yet come across a single true-believer who can intelligently and rationally defend the narrative.
You yourself are a prime example. You can’t even admit what explicit means.

[ConfusedJew]

You haven’t yet provided ANY evidence at all. You just make many false claims from ignorance of the detail of that evidence.

If you disagree, then list the ‘evidence’ you have provided, plus include verifiable references showing where you got it.


I came to believe it through reading, researching, analysing, discussing with holocaust true-believers on numerous holocaust chat-forums. It was the latter that has been most convincing as I have NEVER yet come across a single true-believer who can intelligently and rationally defend the narrative.
You yourself are a prime example. You can’t even admit what explicit means.

I have provided evidence but when people are arguing in favor of something, it's possible to interpret the most resounding evidence as weak.

Are you absolutely 100% certain that the Holocaust didn't happen or do you still have questions?

I did write the definition of explicit. What some people think is obvious might not be so obvious to other people.

[Nessie]

No so-called revisionist has dealt with the OP, and the criticism of so-called revisionism and its cherry-picking of evidence and inability to explain how so many people coordinated a hoax.